1UTILIZATION CONFLICT AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION FOREST

2MANAGEMENT IN FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT MERANTI

3MUSI BANYUASIN - SOUTH SUMATERA

4Ja Posman Napitu1, Aceng Hidayat2, Sambas Basuni3, Sofyan Sjaf4

51Ministry of Environmental and Forestry, Manggala Wanabakti Building. 6 Floor, Gatot

6Subroto Street-Jakarta, Indonesia. Email: jpnapitu@gmail.com

72Department of Resources and Environmental Economics, Faculty of Economics and

8Management, Bogor Agricultural University, Campus IPB Darmaga, Bogor-Indonesia 16001.

9Email: a.hidayat.esl@gmail.com

103 Department of Forest Resources Conservation and Ecotourism , Faculty of Forestry, Bogor

11Agricultural University, Campus IPB Darmaga, Bogor-Indonesia 16001.

12Email: Basuni.sambas@gmail.com

134 Department of Communication and Community Development, Faculty of Human Ecology,

14Bogor Agricultural University, Campus IPB Darmaga, Bogor-Indonesia 16001.

15Email: Sofyan.sjaf@gmail.com

16Abstract:

17Utilization conflict between users can threaten sustainability of forest management and

18sustainability. The study was to determine the claim form, potential utilization conflict, and

19sustainability of the management with the integration of convergent parallel mixed method

20and step working using of Rapid Land Tenure Assessment. Data sources, interviews with key

21informants, literature studies, historical maps and documents and focus groups discussion in

22eight villages around. Results showed that land claims and conflicts arising from; a) land

23ownership demands, b) economic improvements, c) forest and environmental degradation,

24and d) a sense of inequality in land allocation dominated by license holders. Overlapping

25utilization of 38.53% of Forest Management Unit working area. The dispute raises the
26potential for open conflict by 31%, potential arising conflict by 44% and latent conflict by

2725%. Priority of handling criteria of conflict, i.e.: a) areas restoration forest and industrial

28forest plantation in wary status, b) areas open access in priority status, c) Community forest

29plantation and a particular areas in the very priority status to be avoided of open conflict or

30violence. Environmental damage, unclear ownership rights, lack of stakeholder support and

31not optimal institutional performance. The condition resulted sustainable management in bad

32category.

33Keyword: management unit, institutional, land claim, sustainable forest, utilization conflict

341. Introduction

35The decision to establish a Forest Management Unit (FMU) based of Law Number 41/1999 is

36expected to help improve the economy of the local community and reduce the potential for

37conflict between claims of community land use and owners of business permits

38(Kartodihardjo, Nugroho and Putro 2011). On the other hand, two dimensions to consider the

39problem of land claims, namely; a) The community attitudes to own land as a collective

40property and social dimension for acquiring of recognition, and b) Negotiating of the

41decisions as political responsibility for a better future for users in the delegation dimension

42(Scholtz, 2006). Based on these two dimensions, the role of the local community, the function

43of the government to regulate and manage the forest management must be wise to obtain the

44purpose of the FMU establishment (Karsudi, Soekmadi, and Kartodihardjo, 2010) (Sylviani

45and Hakim, 2014). Negotiations to establish a concrete definition of collective recognition

46and sense of political responsibility that is acceptable to all parties (Shultz and Dunbar,

472012). In the verdict of judicial review of Law Number 41/1999, explained the function of

48government is governing (bestuursdaad) to issue and revoke of permitted (vergunning),

49license (licentie), and concession (consessie) (MK, 2012; MK, 2014). So, will be a failure of

50policy choice when land claims arising and conflict between owner and other users form
51various access mechanism (Kartodihardjo, 2008) (Ribot and Peluso, 2003). Forest

52management since the era of Right of Forest Concession (RoFC) to Industrial Forest

53Plantation (IFP) cannot be denied ignoring the institutionalization of local communities.

54Local communities are not given a chance to decide, i.e.: who uses a forest area? What are

55they used? and how does revenue sharing?. It’s the policy problem (Kartodihardjo, 2007;

56Kartodihardjo, 2013).

57The decision to fulfill the interests of one of the parties to the forest resources as common

58pool resources (CPRs), will result in impact to the other user can really be happened

59(Oakerson, 1984; Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). The dominance interests owners and different

60view used, result in the existence of one party can be rejected by the other user or even

61government. This condition incurring the conflict interest to use of the forest area (Hermosilla

62and Fay, 2005) (Gamin et al. 2014) (Fisher, et al. 2017). Until the permit granting ignores

63biophysical condition has been open access and cause of occupation. Community access

64because of indiscipline and lose control (Kartodihardjo, 2008) (Gamin et al. 2014) cause of

65permit are legal but have no legitimacy (Sinabutar et al. 2015). Classification of the origin

66community to use the land in forest areas, consisting of; a) indigenous peoples, b) local

67community migrants, ex-employees and worker to support of the requirements extant RoFC-

68era, c) Trans-migrant and outside spontaneous migrant from another province. The end of

69RoFC-era, ex-employees, and supporting workers the new users on forest land areas to make

70in establishing rubber or oil palm plantations. The IFP-era condition various users resulting

71overlap utilization, especially between companies and communities and its cause quarrel by

72right of land. The conflict of utilization land because rejection of community to use forest

73areas causes the conflict of forest utilization. Establishment of FMU was expected to give a

74solution to governance, and to assist in resolving conflicts between companies and

75communities, but the factual it was also not optimally working. Assessment of operational
 76performance FMU during 2015, showed the sufficient criteria because of the supporting

77facilities, and the rules and also budgets. Meanwhile, the supporting of parties and

78institutional performance have not been optimal and the human resource capacity is very less.

79Because of the above mentioned reasons, the investors delaying to utilize the managed certain

80areas of FMU Meranti. This study aims to find out the land claims forms, potential conflict,

81and sustainable forest management in FMU Meranti.

822. Methodology

832.1. Methods

84This research used convergent parallel mixed method (CPMM) which is the combination of

85quantitative and qualitative data to give comprehensive analysis (Creswell, 2013). Data were

86collected through the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 252 persons from eight villages

87observation (30-40 persons per village) and in-depth interviews snowball sampling of 34 key

88informants consisting of 8 persons from village leader, 4 person from MoF, 8 persons from

89District Forestry Service, 4 persons Forestry Service Province and 5 Technic Implementation

90Unit/UPT Ministry of Environmental and Forestry (MoE&F) and 5 persons from manager

91permit forestry sector to understand the real problem. The perception data was presented in

92percentage to measure opinions and perceptions of individual or group on forest change in

93FMU Meranti related to economic context, environmental and social phenomena. Data

94collection included document study, history and area map of change.

952.2. Data Analysis

96Data analysis used inductive analysis which contains data interpretation (Marshall and

97Rossman, 2006), process analyses using step work Rapid Land Tenure Assessment (RaTA)

98(Galudra, et al., 2010). RaTA identification, is used to see overlapping land use. RaTA

99detects the position of user and history of land tenure. Identification result hope can be

100expected cause land overlapping, interest and influence from all parties. Analyzed conflict
101approach to conflict resolution analysis (Fisher, et al., 2001) and Assessment of priorities

102resolve conflicts used criteria and indicator of identification potential conflict in production

103forest refers to Regulated of Directorate General Number P.5/2016, with the rating of

104categories (PHPL, 2016), as follow:

105a) Very High Priority, if in case of conflict its impact on disruption of company operational

106 activity, and there has been damage of facility of company and meditation have not

107 succeed, or also conflict between user which can damage facility and impact to employee.

108b) Priority, if in case of conflict its impact on disruption of company operational activity, and

109 already happened damage of facility of company and meditation in process

110c) Watchful, if a conflict situation one party has protested and filed a claim for forest

111 damages.

112d) Controlled, if the conflict conditions seem to overlap but both parties have been able to

113 resolve the problem.

114Assessment of conflict was shown in Table 1.

115Assessment of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) production forest modified of the

116regulated Directorate General Sustainable Forest Management Regulated Number P.8/VI-

117BPPHH/2011 (PHP, 2011). Focus criteria and indicator assessment is production, social, and

118ecology dimension. Assessment of criteria and indicator dimension was shown in Table 2.

1193. Result and Discussion

1203.1. Overlapping utilization

121The results study explained forest changes since the RoFC era into the IFP era, followed by

122forest biophysical changes and the dynamics of land access. Biophysical changes were forest

123cover for plantations, settlements, and other users. The dynamics of land access are linked to

124the expansion of the administrative village and of the new villages forming. Mapping

125analysis between forest area and village administration comparing to RoFC-era can see
126overlapping condition. The overlapping on spread area caused land claims between users

127cause unclear of boundaries, see Figure 1.

128Total area of village administration area is about 216,662 hectares or 2.164,64 km 2. The

129largest village is Sako Suban and the smallest is Tampang Baru. The average population

130growth is about 3.08 people/Km2. If we compared the villages area to the community land

131ownership related to the land overlapping are the ideal land ownership is 1:66. 33. It means

132one household should have 66.33 hectares land. The fact, FGD results from 252 people

133informants household showed that only 57% of the land community have about 1-1.5

134hectares for each household and only 1% household have more than 10 hectares. If we

135compared the land ownership to the income, the household’s leader who has average income

136under 154 USD per month are about 200 people or 80%. Furthermore, the household leader

137who earns highest monthly income 385 USD only 3 people (1%). The compared between

138land ownership and household income was shown in Table 3 and Figure 2.

139We can see the people around the forest having the lowest income below 154 USD per month

140is very large or 80% so it can be explained there are some actors who have a very large land.

141The results of in-depth interviews with community leaders in Talang Uluh village revealed

142that many people outside the village as owners are described as follows:

143 "The land here belongs to us all. The former village head of Talang Uluh who lives in

144Palembang owns hundred hectares of rubber plantation area and there are also police

145officials from Palembang, and also many outside people (from Palembang) who owned the

146rubber plantation. I think the people who have money, he will dominating to be land owner"

147 HS(52) Village leader from Talang Ulu.

148The dominant owner on forest area is 6 units of Industrial Forest Plantation (IFP). The

149community ownership consists of 1 unit of community forest plantation (CFP), settlement

150and community owned plantation and 4 units oil palm and rubber plantation. The total area of
151industrial forest plantation permit is about 196,784.59 hectares or 78.01%, settlement and

152community owned plantation is about 25,854.88 or 10.25%, coal mining and oil-petroleum is

153about 20,963.09 hectares or 8, 31%, Oil palm and rubber plantation companies covering an

154area of 8149.65 hectares or 3.23%. The resulting analysis from the dominant owner of the

155land use, was shown in Table 4.

1563.2. Mapping of Utilization Conflict

157Identifying interested parties in forest utilization, among community groups and IFP, ER and

158another user can be grouped into 31 community groups and owners of rubber plantations, see

159Table 5.

1603.2.1. The Object of conflict

161The conflict object within the working area of the Meranti FMU is distinguished by the

162location of the ER and IFP permits, the conflicted character of each location can be explained

163as follows:

164- In the ecosystem restoration work area, conflicts are spread area in some places with total

165 land claims of about 2,500 hectares. Generally, the land is managed by local indigenous

166 peoples but now in an ER location of approximately 52170 hectares, there is a newly

167 created non-procedural transmigration village (formed by former village heads and

168 participants). Sako Suban village is a village adjacent to the ER area. Currently many

169 migrants from Lampung Province, Musi Rawas Regency, Muratara District and

170 surrounding Jambi Province, which produces various land claims and conflict dynamics.

171- In the IFP area, encountered a variety of utilization conflicts, among others: the new

172 transmigration village nonprocedural (illegal villages), land clearing and logging activities,

173 and the claim land ownership. Based on the clutches of land, the community claim can be

174 divided into four characters, namely: a) recognized but not managed, b) recognized has

175 been self-managed, c) recognized but managed by IPF companies, and d) recognized but
176 managed by the plantation company.

1773.2.2. Typology of Conflict

178 The analysis of conflict typologies to describe conflicts can be seen from various forms

179of ownership rights, users, the scale of IFP business permits and other permits of the non-

180forestry sector and the origin of communities around the forest area. In this studies described

181the influence of interest and influence of actors in the unit of analysis. Effects of interest of

182parties’ role, ownership rights and their influence on the utilization of forest resources. The

183relationship between interests, rights, and influences in games related to the economic

184environment, user characteristics, rules and laws, legality, forest resource characteristics, and

185benefits gained in the institutional. Based on above various factors, the typology of conflict

186can be distinguished, namely:

1873.2.2.1. Typology community land use

188Typology based on the origin of the community can be grouped into three, namely: 1) Local

189community; a) Musi people consists of: Hilir Musi people, Lakitan people, Ulu Batanghari

190Sembilan people, b) indigenous peoples Kubu consists of: Kubu Sungai Merah, Kubu Bayat,

191Kubu Talang Ulu, and Kubu Sako Suban, c) Komering people and d) Palembang people, 2)

192Community Transmigran; who come with the transmigration program from: West Java,

193Central Java, East Java, Bali and others people participants in migration programs, and 3)

194spontaneous Immigrants; Spontaneous migrants are working area of FMU are: Padang

195people, Jambi people (Sarolangun), Javanese, Bataks, Banjars, Bugis, Riau Malay and others.

196Community origin in FMU Meranti was presented at Figure 3.

1973.2.2.2. Typology of Forestry Sector Permit

198The typology based on the scale area of the business permits is either one of the factors in

199changed the typology of the conflict. The extent of different business permit scales will form

200different typologies. The large-scale businesses will be differences to small businesses,

201classification of scale businesses, namely: a) large scale business: company with area>

20250,000 hectare, i.e.: REKI Co. (ER), BPP-I Co.(IFP), RHM Co. (IFP), SBB Co. (IFP), and

203Ex Pakerin Co., b) medium business scale: holder having area 10,000 - <50,000 hectares, i.e.:

204RHM Co. (IFP), BPP-II Co (IFP) and Certain Areas FMU Managed (wilayah tertentu), and c)

205Small-scale business area <10.000 hectares, which is WAM Co area and community

206plantation, see Table 6.

2073.2.3. Intensity of conflict

208 The next analysis of the intensity of the conflict is to see the actions and strengths of all

209parties in claiming communities in the forest area. The various intensity of conflict in the use

210of forest area can be explained as follows: Category of open conflict as many as 14 incidents

211or 31.56% of total incidents of conflict, which means there is a dispute between the two

212parties. The conflict category of appeared about of 17 incidents or 39.35%, means there is

213evidence of a boundary agreement or both parties have a desire to clarify the dispute and the

214remainder are the latent conditions of 12 events or 27.91% of the impact. Claims solely on

215economic needs and environmental degradation from community cares, see Table 7.

2163.3. Utilization Conflict Prediction

217 Observation of field conditions of conflict in one place may affect other actors and

218other locations either directly or indirectly. This resulted in widespread conflict, prediction of

219the spread of conflict areas in forest areas are about 94,016 hectares or 38.53% of the total

220area. Potential conflict of utilization in forest area based on the biggest land claim in the

221management area of FMU Meranti is about 35,641 hectares or 14.60%. Ex-Pakerin Co

222concession currently open access is the second largest potential conflict of 23,375 hectares or

2239.57%. The predicted of the spread area of conflicts from claims of land, see in Table 8.

224Potential conflict escalation cause utilization change and interest user in the forest area was

225shown in Figure 4.
2263.4. Assessment of conflict condition

227 Assessment of potential conflicts in production forest areas in FMU Meranti explained

228the status and condition of various conflict, differences of location to show differences in

229conflict status conditions. Assessment of indicators with values between 1-5 and 5 is the

230maximum value. The maximum total value is 234 points. The result shows that the priority to

231very priority condition to be solved is Ex-Pakerin and FMU Meranti managed area (wilayah

232tertentu) area in open-access condition and many activities to forest land sale. Another

233problem is perpetrators who forest area sale come from outside the area. Besides corporate of

234oil palm and rubber plantation that have a location in the forest area also give less attention to

235the community. While the work area of the owner of the IFP permission has a Watchful,

236status, this is because there have been several times mediation between users but did not have

237the possibility to stick out again. Assessment of potential conflicts in production forest areas

238was show in Table 9.

2393.5. Challenge of Sustainable Management

240 Assessment of dimension approach to sustainable production forest management

241(SPFM) refer to the Directorate General Regulation Number P.8/VI-BPPHH/2011. In this

242study, an assessment to see at three-dimensional analysis, namely ecological, economic and

243social dimensions. Assessment approach comparing between field conditions with the

244strategic planning FMU Meranti in 2013-2024.

2453.5.1. Ecology dimension

246 Assessment attribute of the ecology dimension in sustainable forest management is who

247to implement should keep the remaining natural forests in the restoration areas of the work

248ecosystem in REKI Co. to avoid damage, especially illegal logging activities. So, if illegal

249logging continues, the remaining secondary forest will be damaged. The results showed that

250except for illegal logging, cases of forest fires, non-procedural plantation land clearing and
251structural-relation access mechanisms (Ribot and Paluso, 2003) are also the cause of forest

252destruction. Assessment of the ecological dimensions was shown in Table 10.

2533.5.2. Social dimension

254 Understanding the social dimension is very important by knowing how individuals and

255community groups access the area and utilize forest. The social dimension greatly affects the

256origin of local communities or migrants. Different interests between local communities and

257immigrants make this dimension desperately need to be understood in the field. Assessment

258by comparing how the planning strategy/ RPHJP FMU Meranti with real conditions related to

259local community activity to fulfill their livelihoods and not making oil palm or rubber

260plantations sometimes these activities are the same in the field conditions. Assessment of the

261social dimension, as shown in Table 11.

2623.5.3. Economic Dimension

263 Assessment of the economic dimension to illustrate the economic influence in the

264sustained of forestry managed. The economic dimension becomes very important because of

265competition among users in the size of land in the forest area is very high. Assessment

266implementation of the economic attribute to know the performance of FMU in supporting the

267improvement of economy community in management planning strategy/RPHJP. The results

268explain the economic planning strategy to support community capacity building to develop

269innovation and creativity products that are lacking. In strategy planning, only economic

270motivation. Judging from the damage caused by the destruction of forest resources using of

271economic reason short-term in forest utilization as is illegal logging activity, be design of

272forest fires (Hero, 1999), land clearing of plantations activity, etc. So, to create new

273operational techniques in the FMU strategy of planning, to change of the community

274motivation is very important, assessment as shown in Table 12.

2753.6. Sustainable Management Assessment

276 The results of the analysis of 10 attributes in the ecological dimension shows that

277almost all of them are worth "bad" point about 0.4102 or 41.02% < 50% in Bad category. The

278MoE&F must be present FMU Meranti to create alternative non-forestry livelihoods for the

279community. The dependence on increasing income with the recipients of the land for

280gardening of oil palm and rubber plantation must be changed. If the income of the community

281from plantation average ±Rp.500.000, - per hectare per month, the assumption in the

282community if there to the wider area will be increased income. However, the use of poor

283quality seeds and lack of fertilization and processing technology (wiretapping) will not

284improve the results of operations. The role of the government to provide technical guidance

285for the cultivation of plants, maintenance and procurement of high quality seeds is essential

286to reduce the rate of land clearing in forest areas.

287The results of the social dimension analysis show that the social dimension has a

288sustainability score of 0.3778 points (37.78%) <50% or in the category of "bad"

289sustainability. Based on the results of the analysis on the 12 attributes of social dimension,

290there are 6 (six) main attributes and 6 (six) supporting attributes, in the alternative social roles

291of the community, potential for conflict of utilization and building environmental knowledge.

292The economic aspect becomes the main competition in the issue of rights and struggles, if

293viewed from the economic aspect then the value of maturity 0.4393 (43.93%) <50% is in the

294criteria of "bad" means the sustainability of the economic aspects does not affect the

295sustainability of management. The result of the economic attribute assessment shows that

296dependence on FMU contained in six major economic aspects (investment cooperation) is

297worth "medium" and five other major aspects of bad value, this condition shows the

298economic motive in the business plan is less in the community participation more to the

299owners of capital. Reduce impacts with economic improvements of communities to prevent

300encroachment activities, land burning. So the economic attribute in the division of society's

301role is actually a very important attribute. The high dependence of the community on the

302forest area as the main source of livelihood has not become a serious thing in the attention of

303FMU in working plan. The activities of encroachment and combustion other than destructive

304can also lead to conflict of utilization which in the end all parties can’t work optimally. The

305results the total assessment of the influence of each attribute dimension to contribution of

306sustainable management, as shown in Table 13 and Table 14.

307In Table 13, shown the total value/TIFD in social dimension is very small about 0.3777 or

308only 30.78%. The effect of social dimension to support sustainable management FMU

309Meranti, and another assessment in the ecology dimension about 33.42% and economic

310dimension about 35.80 %. Comparison of the assessment implemented and compatible in

311filed condition to help explain the effect of all dimensions in sustainable management FMU

312Meranti was presented at Figure 5.

313Based on Figure 4, only two economic dimensions can be implemented and compatible with

314field conditions of economic attributes number 3 and 4. These are not the main attributes but

315are the supporting attributes and only have the character of "business as usual". Likewise, on

316the social dimension, two attributes that support 10 and 11 of a total of 12 attributes also

317share the same character. In contrast to the ecological dimensions of all activities, nothing

318fully supporting of the FMU management that describes forest protection activities and

319destructive activities continue to occur, as shown in Table1 5.

320The effects of not really to focus of field actually condition or business as usual motive from

321the all parties, lead of performance management not optimal. The result of assessment of all

322criteria attribute in the each dimension, i.e.: social, economic and ecology explained the

323value sustainable forest management has a score in the amount of 40.60%. This means that
324sustainable forest management in FMU Meranti is in bad category <50% as shown in Figure

3256.

3264. Conclusion and Recommendation

327The conflict utilization over various land ownership claims that have been by the community

328or the permit holders, resulted in the management of the forest is not optimal. The results

329explain, the claims that arise are closely related to cognition, conation, and affection of each

330party, which triggered among others, i.e.; a) want to improve the economy, b) environmental

331degradation ( disappearance of fresh water, forest fires, loss of local livelihoods and living

332comfort), and c) land allocation injustice.

333Predicted land claims area of 38.53% can be interpreted that almost half of the working area

334of FMU Meranti cannot be managed optimally, there is the mutual squabble between both

335parties. When viewed from the intensity of the conflict, the government should focus its

336activities on ex-Pakerin Co in open-access condition and area managed by FMU

337Meranti/wilayah tertentu, so that there will be no greater conflict or violence. The various

338intensity of conflict in the use of forest area can be explained as follows: This is priority

339because in category of open conflict about of 31.56% of total incidents of conflict, appeared

340category about of 39.35%, means there is evidence of a boundary agreement, and latent

341conflict conditions of 12 events or 27.91%.

342This condition has resulted in the performance management of the FMU Meranti was very

343poor. The results of the management sustainability assessment of three dimensions of

344sustainability namely: social, ecology and economic in severe conditions. Implemented of the

345project in strategy planning/RPHJP FMU, analysis attribute of the each dimensions several

346activity can be implemented and compatible with field conditions and these are not the main

347attributes but are the supporting attributes and only have the character of "business as usual".

348FMU management that describes forest protection activities and destructive activities
349continue to occur. The effects of not really focus to field condition and business as usual

350motive from the all parties, lead of performance management not optimal. The result of

351assessment of all criteria attribute in the each dimension, i.e.: social and economic ecology,

352explained the value sustainable forest management has a score in the amount of 40.60%

353<50%.. This means that sustainable forest management in FMU Meranti is in bad category.

354Recommendation to the government focuses more on conflict resolution activities in

355accordance with the priority and intensity of the conflict. In essence, other activities are not

356optimal if conflict resolution is not prioritized. Business as usual business activities will only

357absorb the budget but do not achieve institutional goals in forest area management.

358Acknowledgments

359I wish to thank Education and Training Human Resources Centre of Environment and

360Forestry, FMU Meranti, Production Forest Management Office in Palembang, Musi

361Banyuasin Regency Forestry Service, South Sumatera Provincial Forestry Service, and

362village head in this study.

363References

364BPS MUBA . (2014). Musi Banyuasin Dalam Angka 2013. Sekayu: Badan Pusat Statistik.

365BPS MUBA. (2013). Musi Banyuasin Dalam Angka 2012. Sekayu: Badan Pusat Statisitk.

366BPS MUBA. (2015). Musi Banyuasin Dalam Angka 2014. Sekayu: Badan Pusat Statistik.

367Constitutional Court of Indonesia. (2012). Putusan Mahkama Konstitusi Nomor 35/PUU-

368 X/2012. Jakarta: Mahkama Konstitusi.

369Constitutional Court of Indonesia. (2014). Putusan Mahkama Kostitusi Nomor 95/PUU-

370 XII/2014. Jakarta: Mahkama Konstitusi.

371Creswell, J. (2013). Research design Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods

372 approaches. Los Angeles. USA, London. UK: SAGE Publication.

373Fisher, L., Kim, Y.-S., Latifah, S., & Makarom, M. (2017). Managing Forest Conflicts:
374 Perspectives of Indonesia’s Forest Management Unit Directors . Forest and Society,
375 1(1), 8-26.
376Fisher, S., Andi, D. I., Smith, R., Ludin, J., Williams, S., & Williams , S. (2001). Mengelola
377 Konflik: Ketrampilan & Strategi untuk Bertindak. (S. N. Kartikasari, Trans.) Jakarta:
378 The British Council.

379Galudra, G., Sirait, M., Pasya, G., Fay, C., Suyanto, Noordwijk, M., & Pradhan, U. (2010).
380 RaTA : A Rapid Land Tenure Assessment Manual for Identifying the Nature of Land
381 Tenure Conflicts. Bogor: World Agroforestry Centre.

382Gamin, G., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., Kolopaking, L., & Boer, R. (2014).
383 Menyelesaikan Konflik Penguasaan Kawasan Hutan Melalui Pendekatan Gaya
384 Sengketa Para Pihak di Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lakitan. Jurnal Analisis
385 Kebijakan Kehutanan, 11(1), 53-64.

386Gamin, G., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., Kolopaking, M. L., & Boer, R. (2014). Resolving
387 Forest Land Tenure Conflict by Actor 's Conflict Style Approach in Forest
388 Management Unit of Lakitan. Journal of islamic perspective on science, technology
389 and society, 2(1), 53-64.

390Hermosilla, A. C., & Fay, C. (2005). Strengthening Forest Management In Indonesia

391 Through Land Tenure Reforma: Issues and Freamwork for Action. Bogor: Forest
392 Trends and World Agroforestry Centre.

393Karsudi, Soekmadi, R., & Kartodihardjo, H. (2010). Model Pengembangan Kelembagaan

394 Pembentukan Wilayah Keatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Di Provinsi Papua. Jurnal
395 Manajemen Hutan Tropika, XVI(2), 92-100.

396Kartodihardjo, H. (2007). Di Balik Kerusakan Hutan dan Bencana Alam. Masalah

397 Transformasi Kebijakan Kehutanan. Jakarta: KEHATI.

398Kartodihardjo, H. (2008). Discourses and Actors in the Forest Policy Formulation : Problems
399 of Rational Framework. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, XIV(1), 19-27.

400Kartodihardjo, H. (2013). Challenges for interdisciplinary use in forest management prompts

401 of coalition of forest management, economic and institutional sciences: 2005, 361
402 pages. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, XIX(3), 208-210.

403Kartodihardjo, Hariadi; Nugroho, Bramasto; Putro, Haryanto R. (2011). Forest Management

404 Unit Development (FMU): Concept, Legislation and Implementation. Jakarta:
405 Directorate of Area Management and Preparation of Forest Area Utilisation.

406KPHP [Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi]. (2013). Rencana Pengelolaan Jangka

407 Panjang 2013-2024. Peninggalan: Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Meranti.

408Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research (4 ed.).

409 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGEPublications.

410Oakerson, R. (1984). A Model for the Analysis of Common Property Problems. Workshop in
411 Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Bloomington Indiana.
412PHPL [Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Lestari] Regulated Number
413 P.5/PHPL/UPH/PHPL.1/2/2016. (2016). Pedoman Pementaan Potensi dan Resolusi
414 Konflik Pada Pemegang Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Kayu (IUPHHK)
415 Dalam Hutan Produksi. Jakarta: Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.

416PHPL [Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi lestari] Regulated Number P.8/VI-BPPHH/2011. (2011,

417 April 26). Standard dan Pedoman Pelaksanaan Penilaian Kinerja Pengelolaan Hutan
418 Produksi Lestari (PHPL) dan Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (VLK).
419 P.14/PHPL/SET/4/2016. Jakarta: Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.

420Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology , 68(2), 153–181.

421Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resorces: A
422 conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249-262.

423Scholtz, C. (2006). Negotiating Claims : The Emergence of Indigenous Land Claim

424 Negotiation Policies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. New
425 York & London: Routledge .

426Shultz , S., & Dunbar, R. (2012). Social Cognition and Cortical Function: An Evolutionary.
427 In J. Schulkin (Ed.), Action, Perception and the Brain: Adaptation and Cephalic
428 Expression (pp. 43-67). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

429Sinabutar, P., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., & Darusman, D. (2015). Kepastian hukum dan
430 pengakuan para pihak hasil pengukuhan kawasan hutan negara di Provinsi Riau.
431 Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 12(1), 27-40.

432Sylviani, & Hakim, I. (2014). Analisis Tenurial Dalam Pengembangan Kesatuan Pengelolaan
433 Hutan: Studi Kasus KPH Gedong Wani, Provinsi Lampung. Jurnal Penelitian Sosial
434 dan Ekonomi Kehutanan, 11(4), 309-322.

435

436

437Table 1 Assessment of priorities resolve conflicts

Criteria % Status
Very High 84 – 100 Very Priority
High 68 - 83 Priority
Medium 52 - 67 Watchful
Low <52 Controlled
438 Source: Mofidification from Regulate Number 5/PHPL/2016 (PHP, 2016)
439
440Table 2 Criteria and Indicator Assessment of Sustainable Forest Management
Aspect Indicator Verifier Verifier Assessment
Assessment (item) (item) BAD AVERAGE GOOD
Ecology 6 10 √ √ √
Social 5 12 √ √ √
 Economic 6 8 √ √ √
441Source: modified regulated Number P.8/VI-BPPHH/2011 (PHPL, 2011)
442Information: assessment score: Bad = 1 point, Average = 2 point, and Good = 3 point
443
444Table 3 Comparation between land ownership of household leader and plantation area
Forestry Sector Rubber and Oil Palm Household
Ideal Ratio
Villages Permits Plantation, Settlement Leader
(household : hectare)
(hectares) (hectare) (person)
Sako Suban 57.596 18 298 1 : 193.28
Lubuk Bintialo 54.344 1 583 587 1 : 92.58
Pangkalan Bulian 47.481 7 940 540 1 : 87.93
Talang Uluh 4.494 5.6 110 1 : 40.85
Pagar Desa 8.050 1 750 239 1 : 33.68
Pangkalan Bayat 8.481 3 019 228 1 : 37.20
Bayat Ilir 10.996 2 504 298 1 : 36.90
Tampang Baru 6.873 1 327 834 1 : 8.24
Total 198.315 18 123 3134 Average ± 1 : 66.33
445Source: (BPS MUBA, 2013; 2014; 2015)
446
447Table 4 Permits and forest utilized in Management area of FMU Meranti
Area on
Operational Based Decree area
User/Ownership FMU
Law (± Hectares)
(± Hectares)
Permits
1. Restoration ecosystem areas Minister Decree 52 170.00 50 153.00
2. Industrial Forest Plantation Minister Decree 188 178.88 146 089.88
3. Community Forest Plantation Minister Decree 89.50 89.50
4. Coal Mining Minister Decree 15 317.00 15 317.00
5. Oil and petroleum permit Minister Decree 213.75 213.75
Total 255 969.13 211 863.13
Utilization areas managed of FMU (wilayah tertentu) 35 641.00 35 641.00
1. Settlement and community plantation Letter of land village 25 854.88 25 854.88
2. Oil palm plantation areas or four units permit Region Decree 9 786.12 8 149.64
non procedural
Total Area 291 610.13 245 867.65
448Source: Primary data processed (2016) and RPHJP KPHP (2013)
449Table 5 The actors and interesting
Prediction
The actor Interesting Area
(hectare)
1 Village leader and participant Collaboration Business
2 Ex-Village leader and participant Timber log and CSR
Indigenous people and local community groups (Kubu Land Full Ownerships
people and Musi People) 2 500.00
3 Community of timber logger and participant Timber logger
4 Community of timber logger and participant Land ownership and
timber logger
5 Spontaneous Immigrants (Jawa people, Sunda people, Land full ownership  
Batak people, dan musi people etc.)
6 Dispute between of the JOB Pertamina Co. and BPP-I Land full ownership 24.28
7 Dispute between of the SBB Co. and BPPI Land full ownership 704.00
8 Community groups in Conoco P. Co. area Land full ownership 73.22
9 Community groups in DSSP Co. area Land full ownership 103.02
10 Community groups in MAL Co. area Land full ownership 505.17
11 Community groups in NIP Co area. Land full ownership 99.90
12 BP-DAS Office Land full ownership 23.43
 Prediction
The actor Interesting Area
(hectare)
13 Community groups from Suak Buring Village, Pagar Land full ownership 926.00
Desa Village, and Sei Bungkal Village
14 Community groups from Pangkalan Bayat, Lubuk Land full ownership 983.00
Mahangm, Kelobak, Lubuk Kumpo
15 Community groups from Lubuk Kumpo, Lubuk Mahang, Land full ownership 2 193.00
Kelobak, Sumpal, and Simp. Bondon
16 Community groups from Pangkalan Bayat, Kelobak, and Land full ownership 5 514.00
Simp. Bayat, Telang
17 Community groups from Pulai Gading village Land full ownership 1 549.00
18 Community groups from Mendis Harapan Baru Land full ownership 9 625.00
19 Community groups from Kaliberau Land full ownership 2 582.00
20 Community groups from Pagar Desa, Sei Bungkal Land full ownership 113.15
21 Community groups from Air Jernih Land full ownership 294.79
22 Community groups from Muara Lakitan Land full ownership 995.98
23 Community groups from Bintialo Blok I Land full ownership 10 294.00
24 Community groups from Bintialo and Sako Suban II. Land full ownership 1 995.00
25 JAIZ groups and participant about 11 head of household Land full ownership 100.00
26 Community groups from Ketapat and Air Bening village Land full ownership 50.00
27 Community groups from Muara Bahar, and Bayung Lincir Land full ownership 1 000.00
subdistrict
28 Community groups in Medak from Jambi province Land full ownership 55.00
29 Community groups from Babat Toman Land full ownership 50.00
30 Community occupation spread in the other area (Ex- Land full ownership 16 022.06
Pakerin)
31 Community groups from Guci Buring Semandai and Simp. Land full ownership 35 641.00
Bodan, Bayat
   Total   94 016.00
450Source: Primary data processed (2016)
451Table 6 Typology of business and the community origin
Permit Community Original
Corporate/ Business
Area Indigenous Spontaneous
User Scale Trasmigran
(hectare) peoples migrant
REKI Co. (ER) 52.170 Large √ - √
BPP-I Co. (IFP) 59.345 Large √ √ √
BPP-II Co. (IFP) 24.000 Medium √ √ √
RHM Co.(IFP) 67.100 Large √ √ √
SBB Co. (IFP) 55.055 Large √ √ -
Ex.Pakerin (IFP) 49.380 Medium √ √ √
WAM Co.(IFP) 6.290 Small √ √ √
Sarolangun (CFP) 88,89 Small - √ √
Occupation area 35.000 Medium √ √ √
452Source: Primary data processed (2016)
453

454Table 7 Intensity of conflicts utilization in arena

Intensity of conflict
Object Parties to the dispute Appeare
Open Laten
d
REKI Agent illegal logging activity √ - -
concession Village leader and participant, damage environment
- - √
Arena dispute
(ER) Community groups, getting corporate CSR - √ -
Community groups from spontaneous migrants √ - -
Indigenous peoples (Kubu ethnic) - √ -
 Intensity of conflict
Object Parties to the dispute Appeare
Open Laten
d
Community groups, lose out corporate CSR - - √
RHM (IFP Community groups Mandis, Harapan village √ -
Corporate JOB Pertamina Co, oil and gas pipeline - - √
Corporate SBB Co. oil plantation land dispute - - √
Corporate Conoco P, Co. pipeline, land dispute - - √
Corporate DSSP Co. coal mining land dispute - - √
Corporate MAL Co. coal mining, land dispute - - √
Corporate NIP Co. - - √
BP-DAS - - √
Community groups from Suak Buring, Pagar Desa, Sei
BPP-I (IFP) - √ -
Bungkal, Sei Badak, claim land
concession Community from Bayat Ilir, Lubuk Mahangm Kelobak,
√ √ -
Lb.Kumpo, community plantation
Community from Lubuk Kumpo, Lubuk Mahang, Kelobak,
√ √ -
Sumpal, Bondon village, land dispute
Community from Pangkalan Bayat, Kelobak, Bayat,
- √ -
Telang village, community plantation
Community from Pulai Gadin, Pagar Desa, Sei Bungkal,
- √ -
Mendis village, lots forest land for Sale
BPP II Co. Areal Community from Bintialo lots forest land for Sale - √ -
Bintialo and Sako Suban II community plantation √ √ -
Community Air Jernih, Muara Lakitan forest land for Sale - √ -
SBB Co. Areal Community evicted from the plantation area - √ √
Former employee of a plantation company - - √
JAIZ groups and participant about 11 head of household √ - -
WAM Co Areal Community from Ketapat dan Desa Air Bening, claim land √ - -
Community groups from Muara Bahar, land claim dispute √ - -
Community groups from Medak spontaneous migrants
√ - -
Jambi Province
ex Pakerin Co.
Community groups from Babat Toman √ - -
open access area
Corporate SPR Co. √ - -
Community groups from spontaneous migrants (Suku Bali/
√ - -
Sunda/Jawa/ Bataks dan Musi)
Oil and Community groups from P. Bulian, Lubuk Bintialo, and
Petroleum and Simpang Bondon village √ √ -
mineral mining
Community claim of ownership land, land dispute - - √
Corporate rubber plantation, land dispute - √ -
FMU Corporate BSS oil palm plantation, land dispute - √ -
Management Corporate MBI oil palm plantation, land dispute - √ -
Area Corporate PTPN VII and oil palm plantation - √ -
Community Guci. Buring, Semandai village
√ - -
tower electric dispute
455 Source: Primary data processed (2016)

456Table 8 Spread of conflicts based on prediction of land claims

Area in Area in
Corporate Prediction
Minister Decree Decree FMU (%)
Permits (hectares)
(hectares) (hectares)
REKI Co. 293/Menhut-I1/2007 52 170 50 153 2 500 1.02
BPP – I Co. 337/Menhut-II/2004 59 345 38 187 4 300 1.,76
BPP –II Co. 79/Kpts-II/2009 24 050 24 283 6 400 2.62
 Area in Area in
Corporate Prediction
Minister Decree Decree FMU (%)
Permits (hectares)
(hectares) (hectares)
RHM Co. 90/Menhut-II/2007 67 100 12 131 9 600 3.93
SBB Co. 249/ Menhut-II/2009 55 055 53 639 10 200 4.18
WAM Co. 252/Menhut-II/2009 6 290 6 547 2 000 0.82
Ex-Pakerin Co. 226/Kpts-II/1998 43 380 23 375 23 375 9.57
Samhutani Co. 86/Kpts-II/1999 58,88 58.88 58,88 0.02
Occupation area 689/Menhut-II/2012 35 641 35 641 35 641 14.60
Area condition no permit/other utilization area 12 337 12 337
Area total 343 089,88 244 014,88
Total claim of land 94.016 38.53
457Source: Primary data processed (2016)

458

459

460

461Table 9 Position of potential conflict

Weight
Total
Area Prediction Score of % Category Status Area
score
criteria score
REKI 138 234 0.5872 58,72 Medium Watchful

Very priority
BBP-I 145 234 0.6170 61,70 Medium Watchful
BPP-II 142 234 0.6297 62,97 Medium Watchful
RHM 148 234 0.6042 60,42 Medium Watchful
SBB 138 234 0.5823 58,23 Medium Watchful
WAM 149 234 0.6340 63,40 Medium Watchful
Ex Pakerin 205 234 0.8763 87,63 Very High Very priority
Community Plantation 168 234 0.7165 71,65 High Priority
Occupation area 197 234 0.8382 84,00 Very high Very priority
462 Source: Primary data processed (2016)

463Table 10 Ecology attributes implementation

Attribute Field Condition
Attribute dimension
Status I PI NI
1. Protection of natural forest potential Main - - √
2. Availability of structure and composition of regeneration plant Main - - √
3. Protection of biodiversity of flora fauna Main - - √
4. Protection of potential non-timber forest products Main - - √
5. Remains assured of potential environmental services Support - - √
6. Establishment/maintenance area conservation and education Support - - √
7. Rehabilitation critical forest land in concession area Support - - √
8. Prevention of forest damage caused by fire Main - √ -
9. Prevention forest encroachment and illegal logging Main - - √
10. The establishment of conservation cadres Support - - √
464Source: Primary data processed (2016)
465Information: I = Implemented, IP= Partly Implemented, and NI= No Implemented
466

467Table 11 Social attributes implementation

Attribute Field Condition
Attribute dimension
Status I PI NI
1. Community empowerment in creative effort Main - - √
2. Resolving conflicts of utilization Main - - √
 3. Participatory mapping Main - - √
4. Facilitate forest management partnerships with communities Supporting - - √
5. Establishment of forest farmer group/KTH Main - - √
6. Community institutionalization in business determination Supporting - - √
7. Education and training of community around forest Supporting - - √
8. Building persuasive interaction in land claims area Main - - √
9. Socialization and implementation of the program Supporting - - √
10. Inventory of social problems Supporting - √ -
11. Public consultation of the management plans Supporting - √ -
12. The existence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Main - - √
468Source: Primary data processed (2016)
469Information: I = Implemented, IP= Partly Implemented, and NI= No Implemented
470

471

472

473

474

475Table 12 Economic attributes implementation

Field Condition
Attribute dimension
I PI NI
1. Timber production of softwood - - √
2. Cooperation with investor (3rd party) - √ -
3. Performance monitoring of permit holder - √ -
4. Reclamation and rehabilitation with annual and life crops - √ -
5. The routine activities of the community economic improving - - √
6. The mutual funding sharing scheme - - √
7. Cooperation/partnership development of timber production / non-timber - - √
8. Cooperation in environmental services and carbon trading REDD+ activity - - √
476Source: Primary data processed (2016)
477Information: I = Implemented, IP= Partly Implemented, and NI= No Implemented
478
479Table 13 Assessment in the each attribute of sustainable management
Social (S) Ecology (Ec) Code Economic (E)
Code
Code VSF S VA VAM VSF S VA VAM VSF S VA VAM
S1 3 1 3 9 Ec 1 3 1 3 9 E1 3 1 3 9
S2 3 1 3 9 Ec 2 3 2 6 9 E2 3 2 6 9
S3 3 1 3 9 Ec 3 3 1 3 9 E3 2 2 4 6
S4 2 1 2 6 Ec 4 3 1 3 9 E4 2 2 4 6
S5 3 1 3 9 Ec 5 2 1 2 6 E5 3 1 3 9
S6 2 1 2 6 Ec 6 2 1 2 6 E6 3 1 3 9
S7 2 1 2 6 Ec 7 2 1 2 6 E7 3 1 3 9
S8 3 1 3 9 Ec 8 3 2 6 9 E8 3 1 3 9
S9 2 1 2 6 Ec 9 3 1 3 9
S 10 2 2 4 6 Ec 10 2 1 2 6
S 11 2 2 4 6
S 12 3 1 3 9
Total 30 14 34 90 26 26 12 32 78 22 11 29 66
IFA 0.3777 IFA 0,4102 IFA 0.4393
480Source: Primary data processed (2016)
481Information: VSF= Value Status Factor, S= Score, VA = ValueAtributte, VMA = Value Maximum of Atributte,
482IFA = Index Factor Attribute
483Table 14 Assessment in the each dimension of sustainable management
 VD VDM IFD
Dimension VD VDM IFD
(%) (%) (%)
Ecology 32 78 0.4102 33.68 33.33 33.42
Economic 29 66 0.4393 30.53 28.21 35.80
Social 34 90 0.3777 35.79 38.46 30.78
Total 95 234 1,2274
484Source: Primary data processed (2016)
485Information: VD= Value Dimension, TVDM=Total Value Dimension Maximum, TIFD= Total Impact Factor
486Dimension.
487
488Table 15 Assessment Sustainable Forest Management in FMU Meranti

Dimension Total VSF TS VD VDM IFD Score SFM

Ecology 26 12 32 78 41,03
Economic 22 11 29 66 43,94 40,60
Social 78 14 34 90 37,78
Total 126 37 95 234
489Source: Primary data processed (2016)
490Information: VSF= Value Status Factor, TS= Total Score, VD = Value Dimension, VDM=Total Value
491Dimension Maximum, IFD= Total Impact Factor Dimension. SFM = Sustainable Forest Management.
492
493
RoFC-era area since1969-1992/1998 Village development since 1825-2009 and IFP
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501 Figure 1 Overlapping between concession and villages administration boundaries
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510 PT.Padeca (RoFC concession areas) Villages’ number:
511 PT.Wisma Lukita (RoFC concession areas)
512 PT.Niti Remaja (RoFC concession areas) 1. Sako Suban5. Pagar Desa
513
514 2. Lubuk Bintialo6. Pangkalan Bayat
515
3. Pangkalan Bulian7. Bayat Ilir
516
517 4. Talang Uluh8. Tampang Baru
518
519 Industrial Forest Plantation/IFP boundaries

Community Land Ownership Income Person per Month (US $)

3% 1%
4% 1%
8% 16%
1 - 1,5 hectares < 154
2 - 3 hectares 154-231
4 - 5 hectares 308-385
30% 57% > 385
6 - 10 hectares
> 10 hectares 80%

Information: Indonesia Bank Rate: 1 US $ =Rp.13.000,-

521
522
523
524

525

526

527
 528

Escalation of utilization conflict cause of user overlapping (2007-now)

Primer Forest
(1969-1987
RoFC – era

Figure 3 Origin of Community on Village

(1987-1994/1995

240
Primer Forest
RoFC – era

200
PT. Inhutani – era
(1995/96-2004

Primer Forest

160

120

80
PT.REKI – era

40

0
69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Oil palm and Rubber
Plantation Estate
(6 Unit)
Plantation/IFP
Industrial Forest

Mining
Restoration
Ecosystem
Primer Forest
Settlement
Plantation and
Community

Coal Mining and Oil -Gas Plantation Estate (Oil Palm and Rubber)
Industrial Forest Plantation Community Plantation and Settlement
Primery Forest
530
531Figure 1 Position and transformation utilization conflict
532
533

534

535
Economic dimension Ecology dimension Social dimension
536
Figure 5 Implementation and compatible dimension
537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546
Figure 6 Assessment of Sustainable Forest Management in FMU Meranti
547

548

549

550

551

552
BAD
553

554